AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Court : The petitioner claims to be a supplier of copper conductors to the Company in liquidation. Supply of 203 Metric tonnes of  copper was
made to the Company in liquidation through its vendor at the factory of the Company in liquidation at Silvassa pursuant to purchase orders of May and
June, 2018. The petitioner states that the Company in liquidation could process only a certain portion of the total quantity supplied and had to
subsequently shut down its operations. It is submitted that despite repeated reminders made by the petitioner, the factory operations could not be
resumed by Company in liquidation and the petitioner was, therefore, constrained to file an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon’ble District Court at Vadodara, Gujrat.Â
The petitioner relies upon the written arguments filed by the Company in liquidation (described as the opponent in the said pleadings) where it has been
specifically admitted that the copper raw material belongs to the petitioner and was supplied to the Company in liquidation on the basis of a job
contract and that the latter is not the owner of the said raw material.Â
According to the petitioner, there is a further admission in the note to the effect that Company a substantial portion of the raw material was not
processed by the Company in liquidation but was also not returned to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks to have the balance unutilized amount of
copper returned to it, since the raw material is a high value product and the petitioner wants to utilize the same.
The Official Liquidator is present in Court today. She does not dispute that the copper raw material lying in the factory premises does not belong to
the Company in liquidation and she is also agreeable to appointing a Special Officer to visit the factory of the Company in liquidation for making an
inventory of the unprocessed copper which apparently belongs to the petitioner.
It appears from the application that the goods have been lying with Company in liquidation since 2014 and the petitioner sought to recover the same
only in March 2018. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that steps could not be taken earlier since the parties were involved in litigation
before the Court at Vadodara, Gujarat and a petition under Section 11 of the Act filed by the petitioner had to be subsequently withdrawn in view of
an order passed by this Court on 11th July, 2017 when the Company was directed to be wound up.
From the facts as pleaded and argued by Counsel appearing for the parties, there appears to be no urgency in the matter for passing orders of
injunction directing the Liquidator to make over the unprocessed copper to the petitioner which has been lying in the factory of the Company since
2014. However, as agreed to by the Official Liquidator, a Special Officer can be appointed to visit the factory of the Company in liquidation at
Silvassa for the purpose of making inventory of the movable goods being 34 Mt. of unprocessed copper lying in the factory.
Mr. Rajaram Banerjee, Advocate, Bar Association Room No. 13 (C.B.) is appointed as Special Officer in terms of prayer (c) of the Judge’s
summons at an initial remuneration of Rs. 50,000/-.  The Special Officer is directed to file a report pursuant to such visit and inspection within a
period of three weeks from date.
The petitioner will bear all additional expenses for arranging the visit of the Special Officer to the factory of the Company in liquidation at Silvassa.
CA 69 of 2018 will appear before the Regular Bench after the above directions have been complied.